I've wanted something similar in the past, wishing that there was a blog-like forum for discussing CRC-related issues. I haven't subscribed to CRC-Voices because it seems like a very "old-fashioned" way of online discussion. I don't want to be bothered with emails (Dave mentioned some means of viewing messages without subscribing, but from the Yahoo page, it isn't at all obvious how to do that.) A blog is, arguably, a much better system for online discussion.
It occurs to me, however, that THIS is that forum we're looking for. The Network is a discussion-board/blog/forum platform to discuss things important to the CRC.
Let's just hope that some of the CRC-Voices crowd migrates over here. Spread the word about the Network!
The guiding principle quoted in the article is not the one endorsed by Synod, at least not according to my records as a delegate. I don't know the details of who changed what and when before the principle got to the Synod floor, but the approved principle reads this way:
"All baptized members who come with age- and ability-appropriate faith in Jesus Christ are welcome to the Lord's Table and called to obey the scriptural commands about participation (e.g. to 'examine themselves,' to 'discern the body,' to 'proclaim the Lord's death,' to 'wait for others') in an age- and ability-appropriate way, under the supervision of the elders. The elders have responsibility to nurture in the congregation grateful and obedient participation through encouragement, instruction and accountability."
Three additional statements about profession of faith were added also to help clarify that principle.
The approved principle is similar to the one in the agenda, but contains some noticeable differences: the mention of "faith in Jesus Christ" (a critical requirement, according to Reformed theology), the examples of commands to be obeyed (which help clarify), and the expanded clarification regarding profession of faith (which also help clarify).
Should we use the church as institute as a platform for telling the truth in political discussions as Mrs. Kooyman suggests? The best wisdom seems to be to affirm:
(1) that the church as organism is called to Godly political advocacy, and (2) that the church as institute ought to restrict its official proclamations to the gospel, not pretending to speak authoritatively in areas that are outside her realm of sovereignty and expertise.
To quote Abraham Kuper: "... the government has to judge and to decide independently. Not as an appendix to the Church [as institute], nor as its pupil... both Church and State must, each in their own sphere, obey God and serve His honor."
For example, the call to pursue justice and mercy in gratitude for God's justice and mercy is found in scripture, is part of the gospel, and is therefore something the church should proclaim. Whether using non-hybrid seeds is the best way to engage in this pursuit is outside of the institutional church's area of expertise. Drawing these distinctions is not always easy, but the difficultly of doing so shouldn't lead us to give up and encourage the institutional church to say whatever seems good.
The church as institution is not called broadly to proclaim the truth (but the church as organism is). Rather, the church as institution is called narrowly to proclaim the truth of the gospel.
I would agree about Google Sites. I created our church's website (epcrc.com) with Microsoft Office Live which has significant limitations, but produced a somewhat attractive website easily and quickly. I've played a little bit with Google Sites, but it seems like more of a headache than its worth.
Google Calendar, however, is an excellent tool for a public calendar, I've found. And Google Docs are always useful when collaborating. (We're beginning to use a Google Docs spreadsheet for our worship schedule so that we all have the same up-to-date information about who is preaching, what the offering is for, etc.)
Exactly right, Mark. Simple fixes just are not available for sanctification.
As elders, pastors, teachers, and other leaders in the church we have to resist the temptation to offer therapeutic easy solutions to the temptations of sexuality -- whether rings or marriage or whatever. These don't solve the struggle with sin. And encouraging people to put their trust in them as agents of sanctification is a mistake.
"Though great weakness remains in them, they fight against it by the Spirit all the days of their lives, appealing constantly to the blood, suffering, death, and obedience of the Lord Jesus, in whom they have forgiveness of their sins through faith in him."
I would have hoped that the author would have given either (1) a summary of new data that shows the increasing popularity of older worship songs ("hymns") among the youngest generations, or (2) a careful description of the essential differences between "hymns" and "choruses" accompanied by an argument for the value of the unique features of hymns. Unfortunately, the author offered neither and, as a consequence, seemed to have offended many who love newer worship songs.
Instead of carefully defined categories and thoughtful comparison, we read nearly meaningless arguments for hymns like the following:
[quote=Kevin Twit]Hymns tend to engage our imagination, intellect, and will together... While praise choruses do use imagery, they sometimes get stuck in clichés that no longer engage our imaginations....[/quote]
Really, an argument for hymns is: hymns "tend" to do x, "choruses" "sometimes" don't do x, therefore hymns are better? The problem is not unique to that bullet-point, either. The article is filled with generalizations about both "hymns" and "choruses" which claim far too much for hymns and far too little for "choruses."
The one argument that I could agree with in the article is that "hymns" (if we understand them as older worship songs) remind us that the church is bigger than ourselves and this generation. That's true. But it was too bad I had to read the whole article before I got to that one valid point at the bottom.
Since the Network is about the "nuts and bolts" of ministry, it would be far more helpful to read articles carefully describing different categories of songs (musical and textual) and their drawbacks, benefits, and best use. Or perhaps descriptions of different worship leadership practices (band-led, pastor-led, etc.) comparing them with what is effective and satisfies Biblical and confessional requirements. But this kind of weak article (both intellectually and practically) adds nothing to the conversation.
Housing expense or not, we were always able to write off all our pet expenses as charitable contributions because our cat told us the money spent on her counted as tithing...
On Sunday we're going to do a test run with a simple home-made hypo-allergenic bread: free of gluten, soy, dairy, eggs, and nuts. If all goes well, I'll post the recipe.
We have some gluten-free wafers available, with the sorts of bulletin notes that others have mentioned. But, as others have mentioned, this is an imperfect solution (because of the proximity to gluten and the fact that there are other allergies).
Here is an additional reason to use an allergy-free bread, rather than just providing a gluten-free option: "Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of one loaf" (1 Cor 10:17). Now, using different kinds of bread (or multiple loaves, for that matter), doesn't make the sacrament invalid. But it always distracts and obscures the "thing signified" for me when I see that we are not all eating the same thing. I do not like it at all. But we haven't yet found a great alternative.
This thread has prompted me to look into this again. My wife is, for the second time, on an extremely strict elimination diet (for reasons related to breast-feeding infants). Although she can have gluten (this time), she cannot have eggs, dairy (or any beef products), soy (or similar legumes), or a few other things that are unlikely to be in bread products. We know the difficulties of making bread without these allergens. But surely there is a way.
Please experiment and report back with "successful" products or recipes! I shall do the same.
Les, thank you for articulating your thoughts with more respect in a later comment. I didn't find myself resonating with the original post and came to the comments to see what differing perspectives were offered. I was disappointed to find your sarcastic and dismissive comment. I hope you will delete the comment above as I don't think it reflects well on the mutual respect that God creates between us in Christ. I've also flagged the comment for review for these reasons.
Posted in: Discussions Elsewhere
aguilla,
I've wanted something similar in the past, wishing that there was a blog-like forum for discussing CRC-related issues. I haven't subscribed to CRC-Voices because it seems like a very "old-fashioned" way of online discussion. I don't want to be bothered with emails (Dave mentioned some means of viewing messages without subscribing, but from the Yahoo page, it isn't at all obvious how to do that.) A blog is, arguably, a much better system for online discussion.
It occurs to me, however, that THIS is that forum we're looking for. The Network is a discussion-board/blog/forum platform to discuss things important to the CRC.
Let's just hope that some of the CRC-Voices crowd migrates over here. Spread the word about the Network!
Posted in: Churches Need to Address Allergies and Sensitivities
further discussion: http://network.crcna.org/forums/worship/qa-what-are-churches-doing-address-gluten-intolerance-when-serving-bread-lords-supper
Posted in: Children at the Lord's Supper
The guiding principle quoted in the article is not the one endorsed by Synod, at least not according to my records as a delegate. I don't know the details of who changed what and when before the principle got to the Synod floor, but the approved principle reads this way:
"All baptized members who come with age- and ability-appropriate faith in Jesus Christ are welcome to the Lord's Table and called to obey the scriptural commands about participation (e.g. to 'examine themselves,' to 'discern the body,' to 'proclaim the Lord's death,' to 'wait for others') in an age- and ability-appropriate way, under the supervision of the elders. The elders have responsibility to nurture in the congregation grateful and obedient participation through encouragement, instruction and accountability."
Three additional statements about profession of faith were added also to help clarify that principle.
The approved principle is similar to the one in the agenda, but contains some noticeable differences: the mention of "faith in Jesus Christ" (a critical requirement, according to Reformed theology), the examples of commands to be obeyed (which help clarify), and the expanded clarification regarding profession of faith (which also help clarify).
Posted in: Why Christians Should Be Involved in Advocacy
Should we use the church as institute as a platform for telling the truth in political discussions as Mrs. Kooyman suggests? The best wisdom seems to be to affirm:
(1) that the church as organism is called to Godly political advocacy, and
(2) that the church as institute ought to restrict its official proclamations to the gospel, not pretending to speak authoritatively in areas that are outside her realm of sovereignty and expertise.
To quote Abraham Kuper: "... the government has to judge and to decide independently. Not as an appendix to the Church [as institute], nor as its pupil... both Church and State must, each in their own sphere, obey God and serve His honor."
For example, the call to pursue justice and mercy in gratitude for God's justice and mercy is found in scripture, is part of the gospel, and is therefore something the church should proclaim. Whether using non-hybrid seeds is the best way to engage in this pursuit is outside of the institutional church's area of expertise. Drawing these distinctions is not always easy, but the difficultly of doing so shouldn't lead us to give up and encourage the institutional church to say whatever seems good.
The church as institution is not called broadly to proclaim the truth (but the church as organism is). Rather, the church as institution is called narrowly to proclaim the truth of the gospel.
Posted in: How to Start Using Google Apps
I would agree about Google Sites. I created our church's website (epcrc.com) with Microsoft Office Live which has significant limitations, but produced a somewhat attractive website easily and quickly. I've played a little bit with Google Sites, but it seems like more of a headache than its worth.
Google Calendar, however, is an excellent tool for a public calendar, I've found. And Google Docs are always useful when collaborating. (We're beginning to use a Google Docs spreadsheet for our worship schedule so that we all have the same up-to-date information about who is preaching, what the offering is for, etc.)
Posted in: I Don’t Believe in “Waiting Till Marriage”: A Brief Reflection on Sexuality and Spirituality
Exactly right, Mark. Simple fixes just are not available for sanctification.
As elders, pastors, teachers, and other leaders in the church we have to resist the temptation to offer therapeutic easy solutions to the temptations of sexuality -- whether rings or marriage or whatever. These don't solve the struggle with sin. And encouraging people to put their trust in them as agents of sanctification is a mistake.
"Though great weakness remains in them, they fight against it by the Spirit all the days of their lives, appealing constantly to the blood, suffering, death, and obedience of the Lord Jesus, in whom they have forgiveness of their sins through faith in him."
Posted in: My Grandmother Saved It, My Mother Threw It Away, and Now I'm Buying It Back
I would have hoped that the author would have given either (1) a summary of new data that shows the increasing popularity of older worship songs ("hymns") among the youngest generations, or (2) a careful description of the essential differences between "hymns" and "choruses" accompanied by an argument for the value of the unique features of hymns. Unfortunately, the author offered neither and, as a consequence, seemed to have offended many who love newer worship songs.
Instead of carefully defined categories and thoughtful comparison, we read nearly meaningless arguments for hymns like the following:
[quote=Kevin Twit]Hymns tend to engage our imagination, intellect, and will together... While praise choruses do use imagery, they sometimes get stuck in clichés that no longer engage our imaginations....[/quote]
Really, an argument for hymns is: hymns "tend" to do x, "choruses" "sometimes" don't do x, therefore hymns are better? The problem is not unique to that bullet-point, either. The article is filled with generalizations about both "hymns" and "choruses" which claim far too much for hymns and far too little for "choruses."
The one argument that I could agree with in the article is that "hymns" (if we understand them as older worship songs) remind us that the church is bigger than ourselves and this generation. That's true. But it was too bad I had to read the whole article before I got to that one valid point at the bottom.
Since the Network is about the "nuts and bolts" of ministry, it would be far more helpful to read articles carefully describing different categories of songs (musical and textual) and their drawbacks, benefits, and best use. Or perhaps descriptions of different worship leadership practices (band-led, pastor-led, etc.) comparing them with what is effective and satisfies Biblical and confessional requirements. But this kind of weak article (both intellectually and practically) adds nothing to the conversation.
Posted in: Pet as Clergy Housing Expense?
Housing expense or not, we were always able to write off all our pet expenses as charitable contributions because our cat told us the money spent on her counted as tithing...
Posted in: Gluten-Free Bread for Lord's Supper
On Sunday we're going to do a test run with a simple home-made hypo-allergenic bread: free of gluten, soy, dairy, eggs, and nuts. If all goes well, I'll post the recipe.
Posted in: Gluten-Free Bread for Lord's Supper
Here's the recipe: www.epcrc.com/bread
It should hold up very well to dipping.
Posted in: Gluten-Free Bread for Lord's Supper
We have some gluten-free wafers available, with the sorts of bulletin notes that others have mentioned. But, as others have mentioned, this is an imperfect solution (because of the proximity to gluten and the fact that there are other allergies).
Here is an additional reason to use an allergy-free bread, rather than just providing a gluten-free option: "Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all partake of one loaf" (1 Cor 10:17). Now, using different kinds of bread (or multiple loaves, for that matter), doesn't make the sacrament invalid. But it always distracts and obscures the "thing signified" for me when I see that we are not all eating the same thing. I do not like it at all. But we haven't yet found a great alternative.
This thread has prompted me to look into this again. My wife is, for the second time, on an extremely strict elimination diet (for reasons related to breast-feeding infants). Although she can have gluten (this time), she cannot have eggs, dairy (or any beef products), soy (or similar legumes), or a few other things that are unlikely to be in bread products. We know the difficulties of making bread without these allergens. But surely there is a way.
Please experiment and report back with "successful" products or recipes! I shall do the same.
Posted in: January 6
Les, thank you for articulating your thoughts with more respect in a later comment. I didn't find myself resonating with the original post and came to the comments to see what differing perspectives were offered. I was disappointed to find your sarcastic and dismissive comment. I hope you will delete the comment above as I don't think it reflects well on the mutual respect that God creates between us in Christ. I've also flagged the comment for review for these reasons.